The sacrament of matrimory gets redefined. by Kevin Roeten
(conservative)
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Not only has the other shoe dropped, but the entire wardrobe has fallen and burned on the floor. The act of marriage has degraded to a new level, and hasn't stopped there. It doesn't take much imagination to determine how much further.
On Tuesday (2/22/11), the City of Asheville (NC) approved a resolution that would "allow same-sex couples to share fully and equally in the familial rights and responsibilities of civil marriage". Let's slow down for a second, and determine exactly what that means.
An easy interpretation of the resolution is it's legal to "marry", or to form a recognized union, with someone of the same sex. The resolution also included a city preference list for homosexuals. Interpretation: "The City of Asheville would be openly discriminating in favor of homosexuals in employment." That would be making homosexuality a "civil right". No Constitution, Declaration, or even a dictionary writer ever called homosexuality a civil right.
The next day, Obama's Department of Justice proclaimed it no longer defends the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) against any additional lawsuits. DOMA currently defines and protects marriage as the union of a man and a woman for all federal purposes. Because of this administration's decision to abandon its duty to defend the law of the land, it may now be up to the new Congress to guarantee that marriage is defended from redefinition.
To the dictionary writers of the word matrimony, the definition has been changed. Instead of "the formal and religious word or spiritual bond established by the union", it has come to mean a temporary union between wife and husband that can be dissolved on a whim, or just a decision.
This resolution in Asheville changes that again, however. Now two women, or two men can be "married", and can receive the same benefits as a husband and wife. But there is no stopping point. What if an adult wants to marry more than one spouse? Their offspring? Their beloved dog? Their cat or parakeet?One can think of many perturbations of this concept.
Marriage is a privilege, not a right. It was never listed as a right in the Declaration, nor the Constitution. Many privileges exist, and as long as certain obligations are met any two people (of different sexes) can marry. Used to be it involved only one woman and one man, they each had to be a certain age, had to agree to marry, they couldn't marry a close relative, they couldn't have a communicable disease, and for many they have to be open to having children. The last time one checked, homosexuals could not have any children themselves. Proliferation is not the reason they married.
One might ask if this resolution would allow the City of Asheville to start marrying same-sex couples, as San Francisco did in 2004. What about forbidding employment discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation"? It sounds like this challenges the freedom of speech for non-homosexuals already implicated and given by the 1st Amendment.
If these measures are passed and accepted, where do we go from here?
It seems so may "alleged" Christians are OK with Jesus telling people to love everyone else, but have completely forgotten when He told Mary Magdalene "Go, and sin no more".
The views expressed
in this article are those of Kevin Roeten only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Kevin Roeten is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Walt
Date: February 24, 2011 07:15:35 PM
The right to life is not listed in the Constitution either. Nor is the right to property listed in either the Declaration nor the Constitution. By your logic, then, there is no right to property, and the right to life is unprotected by the Constitution.
There is also no right to privacy in either document. The right to select the career of your choice, the right to marry for love rather than out of arrangement, and the right to do what you want, be what you want, go where you want to go, etc. are all unprotected by either document, because one of them are listed there.
Of course your logic is 100% wrong, because ultimately, all rights are protected by the Constitution. See the Ninth Amendment for details.
Posted By: Logical Premise
Date: February 27, 2011 07:25:22 AM
Kevin, old boy, I have a question.
Have you ever lied? Will you ever lie again? Have you ever committed any sin in the Ten Commandments?
Congratulations! In God's eyes, you are on par with a homosexual for sin. There is no "ranking structure" of sins. If you sin , you sin, period. And most people don't even care. They lie, steal, adulterate, and then profess to be on some moral high ground and to wail about the moral degradation of society.
